Weiand v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
732 So.2d 1044 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person attacked in their own home by a co-occupant has no duty to flee the residence before using deadly force in self-defense, but does have a limited duty to retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible without increasing their own danger.

Facts:

Kathleen Weiand and her husband, Todd Weiand, lived together in an apartment with their seven-week-old daughter.
Throughout their three-year relationship, Todd Weiand had a history of physically abusing Kathleen Weiand, including beating and choking her, and had threatened further violence if she ever left him.
During a violent argument in their shared apartment, Kathleen Weiand shot and killed her husband.
At the time of the shooting, Weiand believed her husband was going to cause her serious bodily harm or kill her.
Weiand had apparent opportunities to leave the apartment during the argument but did not do so.
Expert testimony at trial established that Weiand suffered from "battered woman's syndrome," which caused her to feel paralyzed by terror and believe that attempting to leave would only make her husband more violent.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Florida charged Kathleen Weiand with first-degree murder in a Florida trial court.
At trial, the court denied Weiand's request for a jury instruction on the 'castle doctrine' (no duty to retreat from one's home), following the controlling precedent of State v. Bobbitt.
The jury convicted Weiand of second-degree murder.
Weiand, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
On rehearing, the Second District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida concerning whether the rule from State v. Bobbitt should be changed.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Florida law impose a duty to retreat from one's residence before using deadly force in self-defense against a co-occupant, when such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm?

Opinions:

Majority - Pariente, J.

No, Florida law does not impose a duty to retreat from one's residence before using deadly force in self-defense against a co-occupant if that force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The court receded from its prior holding in State v. Bobbitt, which had established such a duty. The court reasoned that the 'castle doctrine' privilege of nonretreat stems from the principle that the home is an ultimate sanctuary, not from property law concepts of exclusive possession. Furthermore, a duty to retreat adversely and unfairly impacts victims of domestic violence, as attempting to flee often increases the danger they face. Imposing a duty to retreat also reinforces harmful myths that victims can easily leave abusive situations. Instead, the court adopted a 'middle ground' approach: while a person need not flee their home, they have a limited duty to retreat within the home to the extent reasonably possible without increasing their own danger.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Wells, J.

The majority is incorrect to exercise jurisdiction over this case, but its substantive ruling is acceptable on an interim basis. The dissent argued that the district court of appeal did not 'pass upon' the certified question in its opinion, which is a constitutional prerequisite for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, rendering the majority's opinion merely advisory. While concurring with the majority's recognition of the devastation of domestic violence, the dissent expressed concern that the new jury instruction could be misinterpreted to sanction retaliatory violence. Therefore, the instruction should be adopted on an interim basis, subject to further comment and consideration.

Analysis:

This decision significantly altered Florida's self-defense law by abolishing the co-occupant exception to the 'castle doctrine.' By receding from State v. Bobbitt, the court aligned Florida with the majority of jurisdictions and explicitly grounded its reasoning in a modern understanding of domestic violence dynamics. The ruling provides greater legal protection for individuals, particularly battered spouses, who use force against an abuser in their shared home. The establishment of a 'middle ground' duty to retreat within the home introduces a new nuance to self-defense claims, creating a standard that requires juries to consider the reasonableness of a defendant's actions inside the home without imposing an absolute duty to flee.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Weiand v. State (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"